Rajeev Kumar @ Kuddu vs. State of H.P. Cr. Appeal (C-SB) No. 94 of 2026 Reserved on 24.08.2026 03.09.2026 Present: M/s Vijender Katoch & Kapil Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant/applicant. Mr Jitender K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State. CrMP No. 1857 of 2026 The applicant/appellant has filed the present application for suspension of the order of sentence dated 26.07.2025 passed by learned Chairman, H.P. State Waqf Tribunal, exercising the power of Special Judge, Dharmshala, District Kangra, H.P. (learned Trial Court) vide which the appellant/applicant (accused before the learned Trial Court) was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years, pay a fine of ₹1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 27(b) (ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act (Drugs Act) and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, pay a fine of ₹20,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for three months for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 28 of the Drugs Act. It has been asserted that the applicant/appellant has a very 2 good arguable case in his favour. The appeal is likely to be allowed in all eventualities. The applicant remained on bail during the trial and never misused his liberty. The appeal is not likely to come for final hearing and the very purpose of the filing of the appeal would be frustrated by the applicant’s detention. Hence, the application. 2. The application is opposed by filing a reply asserting that the learned Trial Court has carefully analysed the evidence led before it and held the applicant/appellant guilty. There is no infirmity in the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court. The appeal is likely to be dismissed in all eventualities. Therefore, it was prayed that the application be dismissed. 3. I have heard M/s Vijender Katoch and Kapil Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant and Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State. 4. Mr Vijender Katoch, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant, submitted that there are arguable points in the appeal. The appeal is likely to be allowed in all eventualities. The drugs were not sent for analysis to the laboratory, and there is no proof that the applicant was found in possession of the prohibited drugs. Therefore, he prayed that the present application be allowed and the 3 order passed by learned Trial Court be suspended during the pendency of the appeal. 5. Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Trial Court has carefully analysed the evidence, and there is no infirmity in the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court. The drugs were factory sealed, and there is no requirement of sending the drugs for analysis in the laboratory. Therefore, he prayed that the present application be dismissed. 6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 7. The record of the learned Trial Court shows that the complainant had not sent the drugs to the laboratory for analysis. Section 22 of the Drugs Act deals with the inspectors and the powers exercised by them. Section 22 (1) provides that subject to the provision of Section 23 and of any Rules made by the Central Government, Inspector may inspect any premises wherein any drugs or cosmetics is being sold, stocked, exhibited or offered for sale or distributed and take samples of any drugs and cosmetics which is being manufactured or being 4 sold or is stocked or exhibited or offered for sale, or is being distributed. Thus, prima facie, the powers to be exercised by the inspectors are subject to the provisions of Section 23 of the Drugs Act, which provides for taking of the sample of the drug. Hence, there is a prima facie substance in the submission made on behalf of the applicant/appellant that failure to send the drugs to the Public analyst/laboratory would make the prosecution’s case vulnerable, and there are arguable points involved in the present appeal. 8. Keeping in view the fact that the appeal is not likely to be heard at the earliest, as so many appeals are pending for its disposal, therefore, operation and execution of the substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed by the learned Trial Court is ordered to be suspended till the disposal of the appeal, subject to deposit of fine, if not deposited earlier and furnishing personal bond in the sum of ₹25,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court with an undertaking to appear before this Court as and when called upon to do so and surrender to serve sentence, in case of dismissal of the present appeal. 5 9. Learned Trial Court is directed to transmit the bail bonds to this Court, so furnished by the applicant before it, for placing them on record. 10. The present application stands disposed of. Cr. Appeal (C-SB) No. 94 of 2026 11. Record has been received. List for hearing in due course. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 3rd September, 2026 (Nikita)